179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator

14 messages · 10 participants · spans 7 days · search this subject
1999-09-26 21:28Lance @ Inaudible (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
└─ 1999-09-26 21:57eric hill Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
1999-09-26 21:52Wenger Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
1999-09-27 17:09Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
└─ 1999-09-29 12:12Mark Stevens Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
├─ 1999-09-29 17:37Lance @ Inaudible Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
└─ 1999-09-29 17:43eric hill Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
1999-09-27 21:39Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
1999-09-29 17:11Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
1999-09-30 08:22Dominick Winters Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
1999-09-30 16:29Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
1999-09-30 16:42drift wood Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
├─ 1999-09-30 16:48Aaron S Michelson Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
└─ 1999-10-04 08:45Hary Walsh Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1999-09-26 21:28Lance @ Inaudible-------- EHX Boards of Canada web pages announcement ------------ First of all hello to al
From:
Lance @ Inaudible
To:
Date:
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 17:28:54 -0400
Subject:
(idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <4.2.0.58.19990926172405.00979b30@mail.nacs.net>
-------- EHX Boards of Canada web pages announcement ------------ First of all hello to all and thank you for even taking the trouble to check out the BoC website. A lot of work went into it from all of us and the very large majority of correspondance concerning it has been very favourable. Please note, I am not lurker of IDM, another subscriber alerted me the recent threads. I am writing to perhaps set the record straight, but more to attempt to clear myslef of a few unfair accusations. I did not realise that the issue of the discography would cause such a stir! Perhaps it would be more rewarding to me if people in enjoyed the other aspects of the site, like the general design, the gallery etc, which BoC feel are just as important. With respect to the pre-Twoism releases in particular, I can confirm that I personally have not known about them for long either. The for reasons this I can probably explain. Mike and Marcus have been making music for a very long time, using a wide range of instruments and with a large number of other people over the years. For some time now they have had their own self-financed "company" called Music 70, which is a collection of like minded close friends, who produce all types of art: audio and visual. The large majority of the music, film and photography they produce, is part of their life-long love, and remains such to this day. Much of what they do is copied for each other and their friends, and this still happens. It is not for distribution in record stores and I am confident that there is a lot more to come. **The entries you see in the discography are simply homage to this string of product**. The recordings are real. Twoism is real and was self-financed, why cant others exist? BoC's decision never to mention these items before is their own. But I will say that there is definitely NO financial gain here, and there is no particular timing in the announcement, particularly as "hype" for their new album. They ARE recording a new album, and I find it a pity that some people view the discography as simply a mechanism to artificially pump interest in BoC prior to its release, this is NOT the case. We have been talking about re-doing the website since the last album came out, so these counter-claims are simply rubbish. In fact I find these statements insulting and I am quite sure Mike and Marcus would too. There is no rule about what you should and should not put in your own discography. Obviously BoC would have known that these recordings would cause interest. Once again: they were not demos. Someone rightly stated that BoC have a huge catalog of unreleased recordings. Isn't this the case for every other artist? The fact is that none of us, not even me, will hear them. I am afraid that even the most fanatical BOC listeners will have to live with that! Now for the main reason for this statement: As for my "disclaimer" on the discography page about making copies: this is totally out of necessity. I too have a full and busy life, and it is totally true that I do not have any time to distribute copies of BoC's material. Apart from anything else, I am simply not allowed. All of BoC's music is copyright and I honour that privelage. It is not that I "do not care". Someone mentioned that I sold copies of Twoism a while back, this is completely incorrect. At that time, I doubt if 1% of the people on this had even heard of BoC. Mike brought round 5 copies of Twoism, which I sent to people who emailed me, and who I felt had a strong interest in the band. In return I received a few records of other artists, as a thank you for my efforts. I have not made ONE PENNY from BoC. Again, I am insulted at the accusation that I have, or ever will. If you understood my original reasons for EHX as a whole, which features many other artists apart from BoC, my intention was a non-profit organisation which broadcast the music of Edinburgh to the world, as I feel it has a lot to offer as a music making city, even though most the artists are distinct entities. I will continue this as long as I can and in whatever shape or form. I do not receive ANY funding from associated labels or artists. The most I get is bunch of promos and tapes for which I am very grateful. Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the copies of their music that are made. Sometimes it is a fact of life, but they have their own philosophy and reasons for being this way. I would issue caution however, to people who offer money for, or advertise illegal copies of, their music. They are NOT into it. And this goes for their artwork too. On the subject of recordings, the "sounds" page WILL contain some realaudio soon. Again, this was stalled due to a mixture of time and resources, and also to generate a little anticipation! It will features short clips of music old and new, with perhaps some pleasant surprises. Stay tuned! Finally, feel free to comment on the rest of the site! There is a lot more to talk about. I have not read one single posting about about their gallery of pictures and photographs, which they are very proud of. They are very interested in film and photography as anyone who has seen them live will tell you. It is an integral part of their show. I am slightly phased about having to write this message, but I felt I had to, and did not feel it was appropriate to publish it on the site itself. I hope now that this thread can now end and that other more deserving topics can take up your mailbox. Feel free to contact me directly, and most of all, enjoy the music! There is a whole lot more to come from EHX in the near future, watch our for superb underground releases from Benbecula, Kasbah, Realtime and Kovac. Peace and love to you all, The Cosmic Crofter EHX - Electronic Audio Artform in The Capital crofter@ehx.ednet.co.uk www.ednet.co.uk/~ehx np. boc maxima
1999-09-26 21:57eric hill>rightly stated that BoC have a huge catalog of unreleased recordings. >Isn't this the cas
From:
eric hill
To:
Date:
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
Reply to:
(idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909261446520.1439-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
quoted 4 lines rightly stated that BoC have a huge catalog of unreleased recordings.>rightly stated that BoC have a huge catalog of unreleased recordings. >Isn't this the case for every other artist? The fact is that none >of us, not even me, will hear them. I am afraid that even the most >fanatical BOC listeners will have to live with that!
<snip>
quoted 3 lines Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the>Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the >copies of their music that are made. Sometimes it is a fact of life, >but they have their own philosophy and reasons for being this way. I
looks like this "live with it" idea is going to have to be a two-way street. we've seen that BoC-heads are about as rational as somebody who owns a couple hundred guns for personal protection, so the "take what we give you, and that's it" reasoning seems to be a little naive. eric onnow: iso68, "under wood" (haus musik)
1999-09-26 21:52WengerCool, great, marvellous. They exist. I'm happy, everyone should be happy. Everyone makes t
From:
Wenger
To:
Date:
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:52:10 +0100
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <003e01bf0869$6361b800$9bcfb0c2@GraVoice>
Cool, great, marvellous. They exist. I'm happy, everyone should be happy. Everyone makes tapes for their friends, some are lucky that its their own music they can tape. This next bit kind of pisses me off though (but purely in a jealous "Mad-collector" type way)::
quoted 1 line Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the copies of their music that are>Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the copies of their music that are
made. >Sometimes it is a fact of life, but they have their own philosophy and reasons for >being this way. I would issue caution however, to people who offer money for, or >advertise illegal copies of, their music. They are NOT into it. And this goes for >their artwork too. and then up pops the np slot:: boc maxima...(indeed) why is this last little dig needed? its a bit of a "ner-ner-ner-ner-na" playground type thing isn't it? I've got it and you haven't...won't ever...hahaha. just a bit childish I suppose. If its sooooooo good why can't it get a release proper? oh well, there's always my Hi-Scores ep to play (with)...... np: Q-Chastic ltd 7", Legofeet, Cavity Job etc etc.... ;) ----- Original Message ----- From: Lance @ Inaudible <mclance@nacs.net> To: <idm@hyperreal.org> Sent: 26 September 1999 22:28 Subject: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
quoted 114 lines -------- EHX Boards of Canada web pages announcement ------------> -------- EHX Boards of Canada web pages announcement ------------ > First of all hello to all and thank you for even taking the trouble > to check out the BoC website. A lot of work went into it from all of > us and the very large majority of correspondance concerning it has > been very favourable. > > Please note, I am not lurker of IDM, another subscriber alerted me > the recent threads. I am writing to perhaps set the record straight, > but more to attempt to clear myslef of a few unfair accusations. > > I did not realise that the issue of the discography would cause such > a stir! Perhaps it would be more rewarding to me if people in > enjoyed the other aspects of the site, like the general design, the > gallery etc, which BoC feel are just as important. > > With respect to the pre-Twoism releases in particular, I can confirm > that I personally have not known about them for long either. The for > reasons this I can probably explain. Mike and Marcus have been > making music for a very long time, using a wide range of instruments > and with a large number of other people over the years. For some > time now they have had their own self-financed "company" called Music > 70, which is a collection of like minded close friends, who produce > all types of art: audio and visual. The large majority of the music, > film and photography they produce, is part of their life-long love, > and remains such to this day. Much > of what they do is copied for each other and their friends, and this > still happens. It is not for distribution in record stores and I am > confident that there is a lot more to come. **The entries you see in > the discography are simply homage to this string of product**. The > recordings are real. Twoism is real and was self-financed, why cant > others exist? > > BoC's decision never to mention these items before is their own. But > I will say that there is definitely NO financial gain here, and there > is no particular timing in the announcement, particularly as "hype" > for their new album. They ARE > recording a new album, and I find it a pity that some people view the > discography as simply a mechanism to artificially pump interest in > BoC prior to its release, this is NOT the case. We have been talking > about re-doing the website since the last album came out, so these > counter-claims are simply rubbish. In fact I find these statements > insulting and I am quite sure Mike and Marcus would too. > > There is no rule about what you should and should not put in your own > discography. Obviously BoC would have known that these recordings > would cause interest. Once again: they were not demos. Someone > rightly stated that BoC have a huge catalog of unreleased recordings. > Isn't this the case for every other artist? The fact is that none > of us, not even me, will hear them. I am afraid that even the most > fanatical BOC listeners will have to live with that! > > Now for the main reason for this statement: > As for my "disclaimer" on the discography page about making copies: > this is totally out of necessity. I too have a full and busy life, > and it is totally true that I do not have any time to distribute > copies of BoC's material. Apart from anything else, I am simply not > allowed. All of BoC's music is copyright and I honour that > privelage. It is not that I "do not care". Someone mentioned that I > sold copies of Twoism a while back, this is completely incorrect. At > that time, I doubt if 1% of the people on this had even heard of BoC. > Mike brought round 5 copies of Twoism, which I sent to > people who emailed me, and who I felt had a strong interest in the > band. In return I received a few records of other artists, as a > thank you for my efforts. I have not made ONE PENNY from BoC. > > Again, I am insulted at the accusation that I have, or ever will. > If you understood my original reasons for EHX > as a whole, which features many other artists apart from BoC, my > intention was a non-profit organisation which broadcast the music of > Edinburgh to the world, as I feel it has a lot to offer as a music > making city, even though most the artists are distinct entities. I > will continue this as long as I can and in whatever shape or form. I > do not receive ANY funding from associated labels or artists. The > most I get is bunch of promos and tapes for which I am very grateful. > > Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the > copies of their music that are made. Sometimes it is a fact of life, > but they have their own philosophy and reasons for being this way. I > would issue caution however, to people who offer money for, or > advertise illegal copies of, their music. They are NOT into it. And > this goes for their artwork too. > > On the subject of recordings, the "sounds" page WILL contain some > realaudio soon. Again, this was stalled due to a mixture of time and > resources, and also to generate a little anticipation! It will > features short clips of music old and new, with perhaps some pleasant > surprises. Stay tuned! > > Finally, feel free to comment on the rest of the site! There is a > lot more to talk about. I have not read one single posting about > about their gallery of pictures and photographs, which they are very > proud of. They are very interested in film and photography as anyone > who has seen them live will tell you. It is an integral part of > their show. > > I am slightly phased about having to write this message, but I felt I > had to, and did not feel it was appropriate to publish it on the site > itself. I hope now that this thread can now end and that other more > deserving topics can take up your mailbox. > > Feel free to contact me directly, and most of all, enjoy the music! > There is a whole lot more to come from EHX in the near future, watch > our for superb underground releases from Benbecula, Kasbah, Realtime > and Kovac. > > Peace and love to you all, > The Cosmic Crofter > > EHX - Electronic Audio Artform in The Capital > crofter@ehx.ednet.co.uk > www.ednet.co.uk/~ehx > > np. boc maxima >
1999-09-27 17:09TheevilD@aol.com>Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the >copies of their music that are made. Sometim
From:
To:
Date:
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:09:31 EDT
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <40a475e0.2520fecb@aol.com>
quoted 6 lines Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the>Once again, BoC are not at all happy of the >copies of their music that are made. Sometimes it is a fact of life, >but they have their own philosophy and reasons for being this way. I >would issue caution however, to people who offer money for, or >advertise illegal copies of, their music. They are NOT into it. And >this goes for their artwork too.
I have my philosophy too. It says that if you can't get hold of it in a way that benefits the artists or the record label (I would't feel too guilty about defrauding EMI though), then its fair enough to get a copy of it by a dubiously (or not at all) legal method. I don't really agree with people making money out of someone else's work, but... You really have to wonder what their philosophy is: do they auction off copies under assumed names? Do they have some interest in only 200 people actually hearing their music? I'd love some clarification on this: if we get some definitive statement of what their mysterious 'reasons' are, then I'd consider changing my point of view. It may be (and heaven forbid that we think such ill of anyone) that it's pure bloody mindedness. Hmmm... Jorkens
1999-09-29 12:12Mark StevensHere's a reply to the message "Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrato
From:
Mark Stevens
To:
Date:
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:12:33 GMT
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
Reply to:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <37f3fcae.5334639@relay.clara.net>
Here's a reply to the message "Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator" you wrote on Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:09:31 EDT:
quoted 6 lines You really have to wonder what their philosophy is: do they auction off>You really have to wonder what their philosophy is: do they auction off >copies under assumed names? Do they have some interest in only 200 people >actually hearing their music? I'd love some clarification on this: if we get >some definitive statement of what their mysterious 'reasons' are, then I'd >consider changing my point of view. It may be (and heaven forbid that we >think such ill of anyone) that it's pure bloody mindedness.
As Lance said, every artist has a back catalogue of personal, private recordings. What gives the public the right to *demand* that they hear them? I'm starting up my own label next year -- mainly to release music by friends and such, but I'll also put out some of my own stuff. This will be my "first" proper solo release. I've also been producing IDM for the last eight years or so, comprising of well over a hundred tracks. If I happened to list these tracks on a sort of "retro" discography, it's understandable that everyone would think I'd been holding back on stuff, but that's not the case. There's just some stuff that artists will never release, for a multitude of reasons. We've probably only heard about 5% of RDJ's output, about 30% of Autechre's output, etc. Can you imagine the riots that would ensue if Booth/Brown posted a full discography of all their unreleased stuff? We'd never hear the end of it. You're looking for reasons why old stuff isn't released? Like I said, there's countless reasons. Here's a few: 1) It's old. 2) It's crap. 3) It will impact on sales of newer material. 4) There are so many people involved, sorting out royalties and ownership will be a nightmare. 5) They just don't want to. -- Mark Stevens http://www.headspin.clara.net/
1999-09-29 17:37Lance @ InaudibleAt 12:12 PM 9/29/99 +0000, you wrote: >Here's a reply to the message "Re: (idm) An announc
From:
Lance @ Inaudible
To:
Mark Stevens
Cc:
Date:
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:37:49 -0400
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
Reply to:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <4.2.0.58.19990929132020.00951a30@mail.accsandusky.com>
At 12:12 PM 9/29/99 +0000, you wrote:
quoted 14 lines Here's a reply to the message "Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC>Here's a reply to the message "Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC >website Administrator" you wrote on Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:09:31 EDT: > > >You really have to wonder what their philosophy is: do they auction off > >copies under assumed names? Do they have some interest in only 200 people > >actually hearing their music? I'd love some clarification on this: if we > get > >some definitive statement of what their mysterious 'reasons' are, then I'd > >consider changing my point of view. It may be (and heaven forbid that we > >think such ill of anyone) that it's pure bloody mindedness. > >As Lance said, every artist has a back catalogue of personal, private >recordings. What gives the public the right to *demand* that they hear >them?
Just a small clarification, i am merely forwarding the boc messages from the boc website administrator to the idm list. The boc website administrator, aka the cosmic crofter, is a friend of mine and he is not on the idm list. So i am merely the message courier. All info/views/opinions/statements/etc are those of the boc administrator. But to me, music is for entertainment not for argument. Just enjoy the music that is out there and eagerly await the release of new material. Argument takes the enjoyment out of the music and clutters the list. If you have any question/comments regarding the boc website, the boc website administrator can be contacted directly at: crofter@ehx.ednet.co.uk -->-Lance--- mclance@nacs.net lance@inaudible.com p.o. box 450715 westlake, ohio 44145 united states
1999-09-29 17:43eric hill>As Lance said, every artist has a back catalogue of personal, private >recordings. What g
From:
eric hill
To:
Date:
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
Reply to:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909291038090.24492-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
quoted 3 lines As Lance said, every artist has a back catalogue of personal, private>As Lance said, every artist has a back catalogue of personal, private >recordings. What gives the public the right to *demand* that they hear >them?
fans will demand to hear stuff whether they have a right to or not. eric
1999-09-27 21:39TheevilD@aol.comIt has been pointed out to me, in no uncertain terms, that my previous post was insulting
From:
To:
Date:
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:39:29 EDT
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <8a838448.25213e11@aol.com>
It has been pointed out to me, in no uncertain terms, that my previous post was insulting to those concerned. Although I stand by the points made, it was hastily written, and I let sarcasm get the better of me. I apologise for that. Jorkens
quoted 17 lines I have my philosophy too. It says that if you can't get hold of it in a way> >I have my philosophy too. It says that if you can't get hold of it in a way >that benefits the artists or the record label (I would't feel too guilty >about defrauding EMI though), then its fair enough to get a copy of it by a >dubiously (or not at all) legal method. I don't really agree with people >making money out of someone else's work, but... >You really have to wonder what their philosophy is: do they auction off >copies under assumed names? Do they have some interest in only 200 people >actually hearing their music? I'd love some clarification on this: if we get >some definitive statement of what their mysterious 'reasons' are, then I'd >consider changing my point of view. It may be (and heaven forbid that we >think such ill of anyone) that it's pure bloody mindedness. > >Hmmm... > >Jorkens >
1999-09-29 17:11TheevilD@aol.comPlease: I don't have any objection to people not releasing every recorded sound they make
From:
To:
Date:
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:11:34 EDT
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <19cbc4cf.2523a246@aol.com>
Please: I don't have any objection to people not releasing every recorded sound they make (I have stuff myself that I wouldn't let anyone hear, let alone release). Ever wondered why 'previously unheard' Beatles tracks are always crap? That's fine. I'm only questioning the reasons behind people like Skam never releasing anywhere near the number of copies that people want to buy, and then complaining when pirate copies go around. Either one of these taken alone would be sensible: I can understand an artist, or company, not wanting to become too commercial; they would want to remain underground by never selling any records. At the same time, I can understand why artists would object to illegal copies of their work. But it seems to me to be at best misguided to release minute quantities of records, which you then violently object to people copying. Now, can people _please_ stop flaming me over this one. I never suggested sending cat burglars to their studio to search their archives for 'four 30 minute BASF tapes of the two singing after coming home from the pub pissed, a home video of one of their weddings, and their recording of a few songs that they made for their mother 15 years ago, playing a penny whistle and a dustbin.' Thank you Jorkens
quoted 6 lines Here's a reply to the message "Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC>Here's a reply to the message "Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC >website Administrator" you wrote on Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:09:31 EDT: > >>You really have to wonder what their philosophy is: do they auction off >>copies under assumed names? Do they have some interest in only 200 people >>actually hearing their music? I'd love some clarification on this: if we
get
quoted 39 lines some definitive statement of what their mysterious 'reasons' are, then I'd>>some definitive statement of what their mysterious 'reasons' are, then I'd >>consider changing my point of view. It may be (and heaven forbid that we >>think such ill of anyone) that it's pure bloody mindedness. > >As Lance said, every artist has a back catalogue of personal, private >recordings. What gives the public the right to *demand* that they hear >them? > >I'm starting up my own label next year -- mainly to release music by >friends and such, but I'll also put out some of my own stuff. This >will be my "first" proper solo release. I've also been producing IDM >for the last eight years or so, comprising of well over a hundred >tracks. If I happened to list these tracks on a sort of "retro" >discography, it's understandable that everyone would think I'd been >holding back on stuff, but that's not the case. > >There's just some stuff that artists will never release, for a >multitude of reasons. We've probably only heard about 5% of RDJ's >output, about 30% of Autechre's output, etc. Can you imagine the riots >that would ensue if Booth/Brown posted a full discography of all their >unreleased stuff? We'd never hear the end of it. > >You're looking for reasons why old stuff isn't released? Like I said, >there's countless reasons. Here's a few: > >1) It's old. >2) It's crap. >3) It will impact on sales of newer material. >4) There are so many people involved, sorting out royalties > and ownership will be a nightmare. >5) They just don't want to. > > >-- >Mark Stevens > >http://www.headspin.clara.net/ > >
1999-09-30 08:22Dominick WintersI have known a few label owners over the years of varying success and I can see Skam's poi
From:
Dominick Winters
To:
Date:
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:22:31 GMT
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <19990930082232.87052.qmail@hotmail.com>
I have known a few label owners over the years of varying success and I can see Skam's point of view. You may THINK that Skam could sell 100,000 copies of whatever but are they confident? They are never going to press too many just so that everyone who wants one gets one, and then have some leftover and make a loss. Before you interject, the Mask series is different, for very obvious reasons. Yeh? Many people I know are paranoid about pressing too many and maybe they think that, for now, pressing up a limited amount that will definitely sell is a financially sound tactic. This of course applies to a proper label, not a homemade batch of 50 tapes. That is different issue. This not a flame by the way, just another angle on the story!
quoted 33 lines From: TheevilD@aol.com>From: TheevilD@aol.com >To: idm@hyperreal.org >Subject: Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator >Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:11:34 EDT > >Please: I don't have any objection to people not releasing every recorded >sound they make (I have stuff myself that I wouldn't let anyone hear, let >alone release). Ever wondered why 'previously unheard' Beatles tracks are >always crap? >That's fine. >I'm only questioning the reasons behind people like Skam never releasing >anywhere near the number of copies that people want to buy, and then >complaining when pirate copies go around. Either one of these taken alone >would be sensible: I can understand an artist, or company, not wanting to >become too commercial; they would want to remain underground by never >selling >any records. At the same time, I can understand why artists would object to >illegal copies of their work. But it seems to me to be at best misguided to >release minute quantities of records, which you then violently object to >people copying. > >Now, can people _please_ stop flaming me over this one. I never suggested >sending cat burglars to their studio to search their archives for 'four 30 >minute BASF tapes of the two singing after coming home from the pub pissed, >a >home video of one of their weddings, and their recording of a few songs >that >they made for their mother 15 years ago, playing a penny whistle and a >dustbin.' > >Thank you > >Jorkens
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
1999-09-30 16:29AeOtaku@aol.comOn Skam print runs: They could probably sell about 10,000 a piece. However, if they were t
From:
To:
Date:
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:29:17 EDT
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <51b43915.2524e9dd@aol.com>
On Skam print runs: They could probably sell about 10,000 a piece. However, if they were to start printing big runs, the appeal might be lost (remember, you can't want something until you can't have it or it appears you can't have it) and Skam would actually be bought based on the music on the records. No diss to Skam, I wouldn't want to be sitting on tons of records either, but I don't see what the problem with periodic repressings of 500 to 1,000 would be, seeing as how they'd have no problem selling them. It's much like Warp - they could easily repress WAP88 or many others but that I guess defeats the "purpose" of the release. It's fun to be a trainspotter though. B.
1999-09-30 16:42drift wood--- AeOtaku@aol.com wrote: > It's fun to be a trainspotter though. It's not much fun for a
From:
drift wood
To:
Date:
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:42:40 +0100 (BST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <19990930164240.8659.rocketmail@web601.yahoomail.com>
--- AeOtaku@aol.com wrote:
quoted 1 line It's fun to be a trainspotter though.> It's fun to be a trainspotter though.
It's not much fun for anyone being around them. That's why trainspotters are always Billy No-mates and why you never see a trainspotter with a girlfriend. Keep it in the closet! ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
1999-09-30 16:48Aaron S MichelsonExcerpts from mail: 30-Sep-99 Re: (idm) An announcement f.. by =?iso-8859-1?q?drift@yah >
From:
Aaron S Michelson
To:
, drift wood
Date:
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
Reply to:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <UrwtFGm00UwC00OF00@andrew.cmu.edu>
Excerpts from mail: 30-Sep-99 Re: (idm) An announcement f.. by =?iso-8859-1?q?drift@yah
quoted 3 lines It's not much fun for anyone being around them. That's> It's not much fun for anyone being around them. That's > why trainspotters are always Billy No-mates and why > you never see a trainspotter with a girlfriend.
Eh?
1999-10-04 08:45Hary Walsh>>>>> "sequential" == sequential circus <iso-8859-1> writes: sequential> It's not much fun
From:
Hary Walsh
To:
drift wood
Cc:
Date:
Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:45:24 +0100 (BST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
Reply to:
Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC website Administrator
permalink · <14328.26884.629032.212322@fire>
quoted 1 line "sequential" == sequential circus <iso-8859-1> writes:>>>>> "sequential" == sequential circus <iso-8859-1> writes:
sequential> It's not much fun for anyone being around them. That's sequential> why trainspotters are always Billy No-mates and why sequential> you never see a trainspotter with a girlfriend. Somebody take this guy outside and shoot him. ;P~~ -- hjw